Conscience: The Mechanism of Morality

8/12/2019 Conscience: The Mechanism of Morality

1/521

CONSCIENCE

the mechanism of morality

JEFFREY BENJAMIN WHITE, M.S., M.A., PhD.


2/521


3/521

Copyright 2007 Jeffrey Benjamin WhiteAll Rights Reserved.ISBN: 1-4196-6572-3


4/521


5/521

And is not this universally true? If a mandoes something for the sake of somethingelse, he wills not that which he does, butthat for the sake of which he does it.

-- Socrates1

It all started with Ann-Ellen Marion and Dr. DanWhite. Each in their own ways has shown me strength,

courage, kindness and passion, the tensions of whichground my every conception. I often miss the firefliesand elderberries and the evening crickets in the rooms ofthe house. From one side of a frozen winter river wesaw otters sledding the far bank to ramp out into theruddy water only to run up on a straight path in the snowsingle file shaking droplets in the cold to wait and to slideagain on their backs and bellies skidding down and up

and out and, splayed wet fur in mid-air, splash. Dearlymissed is Scott Jeavons; sunsets on the lake, andbicycles, and skipping school and Frisbee and life. Wewould have seen more had the world run right. Good-bye.

1Plato, Gorgias, 1892, page 467.


6/521

ii

Acknowledgements:

The people in your life make you who you are.So many have supported me, fed me and on whom Ihave foundered. None have seen an adequate return.Some have sacrificed as much as I for this end. Somestill do. I must first thank my brother Justin, withoutwhose patient and generous support I may not have

seen this month, or the last, or the one before. Also, mybrother Aaron, without whose respect I may not haveseen my self capable of this work, or the last, or the onebefore. Thank you, both, and with them Renee andSkyler and Avery, who stand to win or lose for what weall do these days ahead.

Many others have been very good to me theyears spent in Columbia, nearly as many as those who

have not. Foremost are Professors AlexanderVonSchoenborn and John Jack Kultgen. In these men,there are lives worth living. I hope to do them justicewith the rest of my own. Equally, thanks to ProfessorRon Sun of Rensselaer Polytechnic. It is his text, Dualityof Mind, which set the stage for this one. Also, thanks toProfessors Joseph Bien and Donald Sievert, withoutwhose timely support all was surely lost, and without

whom Id have known neither Rousseau norWittgenstein, old friends all. Thanks also PatriceCanivez: life is already another mans vegetable patch.

I am especially honored to recognize ProfessorBill Wickersham. Professor Wickersham lives foropportunities for others to live well, even better than he,and works hard at it. Bill, we all owe you, big time.Thanks also to Professor Sam Richmond, without whose

encouragement and example I may not have recognizedthe surest path to truth: long suffering with an openheart. Special acknowledgement is also due to two


7/521

iii

young men who together dragged me from the ditch lastsummer: Joel Dittmer and Jared Gassen. They stoodme up and put me first when I was only fallen and alone.I could not have made it without you guys. Thanks.

Deep gratitude is owed to Professor Herb Tillema,for patient hours in conversation on the substanceespecially of the first and fourth chapters. Your supportand time meant the world to me; thanks Professor. And,thanks to Dean Theodore Tarkow, whose supportfinanced the defense of my dissertation, the substanceof which comprises most of what follows.

Supporting me in the broader sphere of life thereare Cortney McIntyre, and Tinatin Margelashvili. Youboth have given me pause to value what otherwise Ihave not, myself. Thanks also to Chun Quian for helpingwith formatting, for friendship, and for finding my

traditional Chinese name: I am grateful for the friendship of Christos and

Sandra, Lois, Sarah Suzie McElroy, and Jon Pezwhom I would like to thank especially. You all showedup, every time, all the time, and Jon even got up early todo it: thanks, Mr. Pez. Thanks to Bill and Ernie for beingthemselves, to Colin Webb and Allen Talbert for lettingme be myself, to Mark Esser for caring anyways, andalike Schyler, Kathy, Jonni, Ashley, Nick, Yvonne, Ezra,Chandler, Michelle, Phil, Allison, Martha Kang, MeredithMountford, the Melissas, Doug, Linda, Trevor, theGuptas, the Vallentynes, and so many others who lovedme even in passing, Tom, Liz, Leah, the Emilys, the Wuj,Russ, Rachael, Katy, Beaker, Brandt, Ron, Trent, JasonTop Hat Hedderman, Mark Kloeppel, Wes, the Johns,Tony, Eric, Greg, Tiffany, Elaine, Solomon, the Kyles,

the Adams and Cameron and the crews at Addisons,Shakespeares, Billiards, Sal from Eastside, Jeremy at


8/521

iv

The Artisan, everyone at El Rancho, Les Bourgeois, andespecially Lakota, the work stage for much of these lastyears. There are far away from a long time ago DanMiller, and Ian Barrett, and Jason Collins, Lars

Allenstein, Kurt, the Steves, Chris, Nancy, Tim, Chuck,Mike, Ted, David, Eric, Bones, Hovey, Joey, Ballgame,Bill, Tony, T.C., Otto, old man Boraski and all the gangfor what could have been and was. Most of all, thanks toRacheal Wehunt, who deserves more than anyone mylove for years of struggle. I will always hold on to aselfish hope that you are better than well. Thanks toProfessors Ng, Diraj, Ball, Masnovi, Flechtner, Karenand the Kulises, and especially to John Luoma forencouragement and friendship during many ups anddowns beginning almost a decade ago and ending onlywith his life. Thanks to Professor Ron Olsen who

believed in me and encouraged a practical interest inChemistry more than 15 years past. On the back of anexam, I laid out a model life as a model chemicalreaction. He replied: Prove it. We are all still waitingfor that. From more than 20 years past thanks to Allanand Nancy Eckert, for whom I produced an even earlierversion of the work at hand. I sketched a model man inthe space of a phenomenal vacuum. That they loved me

kept me going in that emptiness a very long while.More than anything, I am grateful for the

hundreds of students with whom I have had the honor oflearning Philosophy even as I learned to teach it. Thistext is my mind borne out, exploded and spread thinbeginning to end; you are, each of you, the threads thatheld it together.

Everyone, I have become, if not better, then by

your influence simply what I am. Thank you, all of you.


9/521

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

Acknowledgements: ..................................................................................... iiDIRECTORY:...............................................................................................vPreface:...................................................................................................... viiForward: ...................................................................................................... ixIntroduction: Why Conscience, Why Now? .............................................lxxxi1. Conscience, and why we are awake. ......................................................12. Conscience, and why we live at all........................................................253. Conscience, and the different faces of the right thing to do...................344. Conscience, and how to do the right thing at the right time...................445. Conscience, and the limits of experience..............................................546. Conscience, and the everyday. .............................................................91

7. Conscience, and the way of the world.................................................1028. Conscience, and the way we live. .......................................................1299. Conscience, and the good...................................................................15210. Conscience, and the appearance of the good...................................17011. Conscience, and the fact of matter....................................................19912. Conscience, and freedom. ................................................................22713. Conscience, and the just life. ............................................................24514. Conscience, and the end of the world. ..............................................27315. Conscience, and the beginning of the world......................................31416. Conscience, and the Constitution......................................................341

Appendix 1) Phenomenology and the Modern Tradition: .........................376

Works Consulted:.....................................................................................389INDEX: .....................................................................................................414


10/521


11/521

DIRECTORY:

The Forward establishes relationships betweenneurology and the moral exemplar, leadership and themeaning of life, and the conflict between science andreligion over the right thing to do.

The Introduction presents Socratic Philosophy asa method for the reconciliation of science and religion aseither struggle over the end of the world.

Chapter 1 develops the psychology of conscience

through the work of William James.Chapter 2 deploys this psychology through the

example of Martin Luther King, Jr.Chapter 3 describes what an opportunity to do the

right thing looks like and how it arises.Chapter 4 develops a theory of action which

meets the terms of such opportunities.Chapter 5 introduces the ACTWith model of

conscience on the basis of the results of the precedingsections, and sets the model in motion as the beatingheart of conscience.

Chapter 6 illustrates conscience at work in theworld through historic examples of conscientiouspersons.

Chapter 7 investigates the consequences ofconscience at work in the world through Socrates

example and Philosophy.Chapter 8 informs moral theory by bringing the

results of the preceding sections to bear on Kantsphilosophy of conscience.

Chapter 9 brings the conscience to bear on thespace of the readers own life through an affectivereformulation of the Cartesian method by way ofDiogenes bath-tub.

Chapter 10 brings the reader face to face with themortal depths of conscience through Martin Heideggersmoral psychology.


12/521

vi

Chapter 11 shows that it is the purpose of themoral life to live conscientiously.

Chapter 12 shows that freedom to liveconscientiously is the self-determination of the story interms of which one discovers life meaningful.

Chapter 13 illustrates the meaningful life storythrough Socrates example and Philosophy while facedwith the tragic irony of his unjust execution by corruptleadership.

Chapter 14 confronts the reader with the injusticeof his own world, and with the ill-logic underlying it.

Chapter 15 arms the reader with the ACTWithmodel in the face of injustice and corruption.

Chapter 16 reinforces the conscientiouslymotivated reader to do the right thing by recalling therole of conscience in the minds of the architects of the

Democracy of the United States of America.The Appendix uncovers the role of traditional

Philosophy in the moral life by excising the dead tissueof the modern, analytic tradition.

The Preface summarizes the text.The Author confesses that the text is not perfect,

but encourages the reader to carry through for the fullestunderstanding of Conscience: the mechanism of

morality.

-- The 1stof May, 2007


13/521

vii

Preface:

Men do not know how what is at varianceagrees with itself. It is an attunement ofopposite tensions, like that of the bow andthe lyre.

-- Heraclitus2

Therefore the sage is guided by what hefeels and not by what he sees.

-- Lao tzu3

When the natural world changes, when objectslike the ocean and the ozone change, we change. Whenthe weather changes the science changes, never theother way around. Our stories are simply a series of

adjustments over long periods of time taken in terms ofthe always current situation. Much of our situation hasalways been hidden from us. Many of our oldadjustments no longer apply. The instrument forevaluation however hasnt. This is the conscience.

In wondering about the right thing to do, one hasthree options. There is the consultation of religion.There is the consultation of others. There is the

consultation of ones self. As religion is what others saythat god has said, the first two amount to the same thing.As every one must consult himself in giving consultationto others, the second two amount to the same thing. Inconsulting with ones self, there is the conscience.

A man is different from a rock. A man has ametabolic potential above that of things at rest in the

2Fragment 45.

3Tao Te Ching.


14/521

viii

world. A man may use his metabolic potentials to moveaway from rest and into turbulence, into the unknown. Aman may discover. He may become otherwise. He mayopen to the unknown and order it in himself through hisexperience. He is synthetic. A rock is not. This ismans freedom, to become himself through the exerciseof himself. A rock is not free, and insofar as a man doesnot exercise this freedom, he may as well be a rock.

You see as we grow, we do not simply embodyregularities around us, but we have the capacity to takein disorder and order it along the way. A rock will heatand cool, becoming what it is because of itsenvironment. A rock cannot open to some things andclose to others. Persons have a limited capacity to opento the world, or to close off from it. In being open to theworld, internalizing disorder and ordering it in

understanding, we create structures of thought. Webuild systems of explanation. We arrange what hadotherwise been unarranged. We understand. This is thework behind being able to answer any question thatbegins with Why? We offer this fruit to the followinggenerations. This is wisdom. This is a product ofconscience.

To discover effectively we take up and embody

what might be called transcendental logics orprograms of inquiry. Some might call them searchroutines, methodological tools for finding things. And bythis I do not mean a toothpick or even a shovel, or anotebook and an ear to the ground. I mean a life whichgrows into the world as it is revealed, a life active in thediscovery of the world. This life becomes the catalyst ofthe world that builds bridges from dust. The goal of this

life is that one may say, at the height of his development,I ama method of discovery.


15/521

ix

Forward:

I think Western culture has thingsbackwards. We equate comfort withhappiness, and now were so comfortablewere miserable. Theres no struggle in ourlife, no sense of adventure. Ive found thatIm never more alive than when Im

pushing and Im in pain and Im strugglingfor high achievement. In that struggle, Ithink theres magic.

-- Dean Karnases4

Therefore, prepare thee to cut off the flesh.-- Portia, The Merchant of Venice

1) Picture your self, chained in a caveFirst, a few words about conscience and

leadership. There are a few famous leaders who showup most frequently in the history of conscience. Thereare Jesus of Nazareth, Saul, later Paul, and MartinLuther King, Jr., Socrates and others. All of thesepeople led by reconciling contrary positions, thereby

providing for the space for peace, justice, and freedomwhen otherwise there may have been only intolerance,ignorance, and violence. It is in understanding theseleaders, their motivations and their methods, that themechanism of conscience will come clear in thefollowing investigation.

King was perhaps the single greatest leader andman of conscience in modern times, and is the first to

4Outside Magazine, January 2007, page 64.


16/521

x

demonstrate conscience at work in reconciliation ofcontrary positions in chapter 2. The middle chaptersfurther review historical heroes of conscience, from

Arthur Miller to Rosa Parks, who reconciled their owninterests with those of others and led the way to a betterworld. The last chapters leave it to you to do the same.

Socrates life of conscience is historys mostfamous, and it is his example, above all others, whichlights our way to this end. Socrates provides the bestexample of the conscientious life, not only for what hedid, but because he talked about it. Socrates felt thatpeople are essentially good. He argued that a personalways does what he thinks is the right thing to do, andthat when he does the wrong thing he is simply thevictim of bad information. He understood that people dowhat they do on the basis of what they understand. So,

Socrates spent his time asking why people did what theydid so that they could understand to do better the nexttime. This is a fitting industry for so famous a teacher.

After all, the object of learning is not simply thecorrection of incorrect information. It is the correction ofincorrect action.

Socrates was especially concerned with what theleaders of society thought were the right things to do.

He understood that less powerful people are influencedto do as their leadership does. A good leader does theright things, and influences others to do similarly. A badleader does the wrong things, and influences others todo similarly. So, bad leadership is especially damagingto society. This means that it is especially important thata leader has correct information. Otherwise, he may dothe wrong thing; and, shown such an example, lots of

other people will do the wrong thing, too.


17/521

xi

Socrates pointed out that anyone can be a goodleader. Socrates himself was a good leader. Whatmade him so good? He understood that anyone couldlead by doing the right thing at the right time provided alittle wisdom and the opportunity to use it. His mission inlife was to lead people to gain the wisdom necessary topursue these opportunities. He inspired people to dowhat is right by getting them to think about what is rightso that they would be ready to do the right thing whenthe chance presented itself. Thats what this book isabout, too.

The following text is primarily a work ofPhilosophy. Philosophy is the love of ideas, especiallynew ideas. It is in new ideas that information about whatis right comes to light. Without new information, newideas, new opportunities to do the right thing wouldnt

even show up. Wed just keep doing as we always did,and never ask whether or not it was right. Doing thesame thing over and over, there would be no need forconscience. Neither are leadership or philosophynecessary in a clockwork world of habit wherein no oneasks any questions or learns anything new. But, theworld is not a clock, there are lots of questions in need ofanswers and a lot more to learn; so, Philosophy,

conscience, and leadership are good things after all.Conscience and leadership are about doing the

right thing. Doing the right thing involves new ideas.Simply having a lot of information, no matter how specialor specialized, isnt enough when it comes to doing theright thing. This is why Socrates gave the people whoclaimed to have a lot of special knowledge such a hardtime. They were often the worst leaders. Though many

even claimed to be Philosophers, or men of


18/521

xii

conscience, without being open to new ideas, they wereneither. Think about it.

It doesnt matter what someone knows if hedoesnt get the right thing done by it. That is theproblem with most people who claim to bePhilosophers and with everyone else who claims tolead by way of some special knowledge and not by hisconscience. Socrates was a Philosopher,5 and ateacher of Philosophy, so he spent a lot of timeconfronting others who claimed also to teach Philosophybut who led people, not to follow their consciences, butwith the promise of special knowledge. He thought theywere doing the wrong thing. He was right.

The people he had the most trouble with werethose who treated wisdom as if it were some sort ofcommodity, like gold or wine, to be bought and sold.

They would claim to have special information, so theywould hoard it, and protect it, as if it were an object thatcould be stolen. They would only share their specialinformation in private, where Socrates would practicePhilosophy in public. They would maintain that whatthey knew was not suitable for all persons to know, onlyspecial persons, people who could afford to pay.Socrates, on the contrary, spoke with anyone and

everyone who was interested in Philosophy, and in doingwhat is right and what is good. Socrates was aPhilosopher. These other teachers were known assophists.6

5 Often in this text, though not perfectly consistently, I will capitalize

Philosopher and Philosophy when making a point that this is Philosophy

done right, the Mother of all inquiries, as opposed to some lesser or evenmisguided practice.6 Sadly, sophist describes the currency in academic philosophical

leadership today.


19/521

xiii

Sophists led other people around by holding outtheir special knowledge like a carrot. Once peoplewere chasing this carrot around, the sophists acted as ifkeeping it safe were a full-time job. Meanwhile, they hida clear view of their carrot behind special language andconvoluted argumentation. They claimed that anadequate appreciation of their carrot required a specialeducation. Then, they kept this special education hiddenaway.

If someone doubted the sophist had any specialinformation in the first place, they were simply ignored.If others merely failed to appreciate the value of theircarrot, though granted that they might have one, thesophists simply asserted that those people were noteducated well enough to know. From those whopresumed that their carrot had value, and could afford it,

the sophist extracted a large fee for an education in thespecial identification of carrots. Then, having seen whattheir carrot looks like, and having learned to identify thatsort of carrot as that sort of carrot, these people wouldlead others around in the same ways with other secretcarrots. Whether or not these carrots were real is besidethe point; after all, it may be considered the trick of avery special education, indeed, to find a carrot where

there is none. It doesnt keep people from believing inthem, and following fantasy carrots to violent ends andeven early graves.

Little has changed since Socrates time. A carrotis still a carrot, and I am still at a loss as to why it costsso much to know that! The real issue seems to me to bewhether or not the carrot is rotten, granted that it existsat all. In any event, we are best off led by our own

senses. When it comes to doing the right thing, this


20/521

xiv

sense is conscience. This book is about identifying theconscience. The rest is up to you.

But, just to make sure there is no mistaking aconscience for a carrot to be bought or stolen, letsfollow Socrates lead a little further. Socrates was astrong critic of the sophists and their methods, and notsimply because they charged too much for fantasiesabout carrots. One of the worst things anyone couldever do, according to Socrates, is to charge for accessto information that doesnt lead to right action. Why?Because charging for something makes it appearvaluable, even when it is not. Having spent money togain access to some teacher with special information,the student may begin thinking that now he knowssomething special, too. More importantly, he may beginto think that simply having this information makes him

potentially a teacher of others. He may begin to thinkthat he should be paid for access to this information justas he paid for access to the same information. Finally,because this information cost him so much, he maybegin to think that others should value what he has tosay and do on its basis, whether his special knowledgeis really valuable or not. In other words, the erstwhilestudent may mistake himself for a leader, and hold his

carrot out for other people to follow in confirming thissame mistake, too.

Repeat this process for a few generations. It isno mystery where such a cycle leads: to the sort ofnepotism and inbreeding which plagues leadership, andthe academy, today. What troubled Socrates most wasthat it all starts with Philosophy, with sophisticalteachers tooting their own horns and elevating only the

students who will polish them.


21/521

xv

This may seem like a minor point, but it is not. Itis no coincidence that in a society whereinfundamentalism and intolerance are on the rise, thisfundamentalism and intolerance is reflected on thehighest floors of its institutions of learning. Simply put,the academy is the birthplace of social leadership.Todays leaders of tomorrows leaders are todaysteachers of todays students. If the right things dont gettaught, today, the right leadership does not get the rightthings done, tomorrow. So, the leaders of anincreasingly dogmatic society are increasingly educatedby dogmatic teachers to lead in increasingly dogmaticterms. This is no mystery.

Socrates knew this. He tried to teach people howto do the right thing. But, he had limited success, andoften wondered whether doing the right thing could be

taught, after all. He called the knowledge to do the rightthing virtue. Virtues are such things as courage,honesty, temperance, friendliness, etcetera. All of thesevirtues apply to specific contexts. On Socrates count,there is one virtue from which all these others arederived. This mother virtue is practical wisdom.

Practical wisdom is knowing to do the right thingat the right time, regardless of the context. Socrates

sought to teach this virtue through Philosophy. He didnot hold class behind closed doors, or write lessons. Hedid not limit philosophy to one context or another. Hedid not charge people to see his carrot. He taughtphilosophy by demonstrating what it is to live aPhilosophic life, and he did it in the open. He was wise,and he practiced his wisdom publicly for the benefit ofhis society. There is nothing mysterious about that.

The condition of the industry of philosophy is adirect indication of the health of the society in which the


22/521

xvi

philosopher practices. It is no coincidence that we live inan increasingly vicious society full of increasingly narrowminded and vicious philosophers. Socrates, King, Mill,Jefferson, Kant, Rousseau, Peirce, Dewey and otherslike them had been leaders of free thought in freesocieties, and whose influences have since been felt inevery dimension of human life. It is no mystery thatcontemporary philosophers are increasingly championsof dogma and conservatism, whose influences areconfined to dry classrooms under artificial light fromwhich what is taken hardly applies to human life in thenatural world, at all. What is a mystery is how such aneducation could ever make for a good leader, a wiseteacher, or a healthy society in the first place.

Socrates understood that a society is only asgood as its leadership, and its leaders only as good as

their teachers. People do the right things by recognizingopportunities to do the right things, and their teachersteach them, and their leaders show them, how. It is thegoal of a good teacher to empower his students torecognize these opportunities, and the goal of the goodleader to empower his fellows to pursue them. This iswhy Philosophy is so important to the healthy society,today.

Philosophy is especially important for ademocratic society. The great strength of a democracyis that it is a nation of leaders. This is the strength thatunderwrites such pronouncements as liberty and justicefor all. Everyone is empowered to do the right thing.Socrates lived in a democracy. He understood this, too.

Early in the famous book The Republic, in thesecond chapter, Socrates tells us that the only just

society, the only healthy democracy, is that in whicheach of its citizens is free to be a Philosopher. What he


23/521

xvii

means here is not that a few people are well educatedand become teachers while everyone else slaves infactories, and a few elites become wealthy and famousat everyone elses expense. What Socrates means hereis that a society is only just when everyone isempowered to lead by looking for opportunities to do theright thing at his own expense. That is why Philosophyis so important to the healthy democracy: liberty and

justice for all means that everyone is free to seek newideas and opportunities to do the right things, and areempowered to do them. Philosophy is not merely a fieldof study. It is the way of life which gets the right thingsdone.

Socrates demonstrated this way of life as helived, openly, everyday. Every opportunity for rightaction begins with the recognition that the right thing to

do isnt necessarily what one already knows to do.Accordingly, every opportunity for knowledge begins withthe recognition that whatever it is one already knows,there is no guarantee that the right thing will get done byit. As true as this may be, few teachers have thecourage to show it. Socrates, however, did.

Socrates understood that the value of knowledgeisnt what one already knows, but what one will someday

do with it. This is why he had a reputation for being thewisest man in Athens, even though he ran around sayingthat he didnt know anything about anything at all! Hewas the wisest man in Athens because he knew that,practically speaking, what others counted as knowledgeis most often merely baggage that gets in the way ofdoing the right thing, now. The wisdom to recognize thisfact is something truly worth knowing, and this is why

Socrates teachings led to the foundation of the very firstAcademy in Athens.


24/521

xviii

This is also why Socrates leads the followingstory of conscience. Writing a book on conscience isntlike giving step by step instructions. There is no recipefor doing the right thing. The right thing to do differsfrom moment to moment. Often, the right thing to doisnt anything anyone has ever done before. The rightthing to do often involves doing something new anddifferent, because times change, and changing times callfor new and different actions. Socrates example showsus how to do this best. So, it is very important tounderstand Socrates motivations and what Philosophyis really all about if we are going to gain an adequateunderstanding of the conscience along the way. Ourstory begins with Socrates story. The most famous partof Socrates story, however, is the end of his story. Now,lets look at how Socrates story ends.

Socrates was the victim of a most tragic irony.The wisest man in Athens was executed on the basis ofbad information.7 Athens was undergoing a period ofrapid social change. Mismanagement at the highestlevels led Athenians into frivolous and unnecessary warsand equally poorly conceived building projects. Thewrong people were in charge for political reasons,because of whom they knew and how popular they were

with the wealthy and powerful elite. Their corruptionresulted in crippling losses both on the battlefield and onthe financial bottom line.

Socrates was an old man by this time. He hadseen Athens, the pride and promise of liberal democracyin the ancient world, bankrupted by closed-mindednessand secrecy. A lot of people were doing the wrongthings on the basis of bad information and bad

7Manufactured by Athenian leadership.


25/521

xix

leadership. Needless to say, this gave him a lot to talkabout.

Did Athenian leaders learn a lesson from theirfailures? No. They continued to mislead publicly, andcontinued to act to retain personal power privately. Theydid not act to empower the generations to come with asecure situation. They acted to keep their own situationssecure for the moment. They lived for their own wealthand fame, now, at the expense of others, later. The trickfor them was making it look like this was the right way tolive, so that they could get the rest of Athens to followsuit. The trick was to make it appear as if they had notfailed Athens, at all, but that their way of life was Athensway of life, and that something else had gone wrong.How did they do that? They lied.

The leaders of Athenian society lied so that they

could do what they wanted to do, to make themselvesrich, rather than correct themselves and do what wouldhave been right, to step down from power and follow abetter leader. One of their stumbling blocks wasSocrates and his pesky pursuit of the truth.

Socrates impugned the leadership for misleadingAthens; so, instead of being honest about it, like bitterchildren they returned the favor. They impugned

Socrates for misleading Athens. They could not allowhim to keep on at the truth because that would meanthat they would eventually be found out as bad leaderswho did the wrong things. So, they told Athens that hewas full of bad information. Then, through power andinfluence, they got Socrates charged for it.

They lied. They made it look as if a life lived inthe open for wisdom like Socrates life was a life lived for

wealth and fame in private like their own.


26/521

xx

The leaders of Athens told a story that wasnttrue. The jury, however, acted as if the terms of thestory were true. Why? Again, I think the leaders told thestory the way they did because they wanted to feel as ifa life lived for wealth and fame was the right way to live,even though, deep down inside, in their hearts, theyknew it wasnt. As for the why the jury believed it; well,we will get to that in a moment.

All of this, however, is beside the point; Socrateslife story ended, and it ended badly for everyoneconcerned.8

Once those who had followed the leadership intheir prosecution of Socrates death discovered that theyhad been duped to live in terms of a story that was false,the once powerful, selfish and wealthy men who hadbeen leaders of Athens were finally relieved of their

power and property and either killed or thrown out. Bythen, however, it was too late; the one true leader of

Athens was dead, and the hopes of its golden age fadedwith his influence. Hopefully, by making all this clear, wecan avoid a similar fate.

2) Breaking the chainsMistake made, lesson learned, right? We are

now free from such corrupt leaders who coerce theirfellows to serve their own interests by feeding them badinformation. Right?

Tragically, no. Look around. Though we live inthe information age, some of these most famousmistakes of powerful men are currently made at anappalling rate. There is a lot of wrong action undertaken

8Except, oddly enough, on Socrates estimation, for Socrates himself, as

we shall soon discover.


27/521

xxi

on the basis of bad information at the behest of currentleadership.

Moreover, with the speed and force by which thewrong things are being done, there is little time for thereflection on, let alone the pursuit of, opportunities to dootherwise.9 There is, instead, the constant escalation ofthe scale of wrong action on the same terms simplyrepeated over and over again, no matter how incorrectthese actions and this information and how bad theleadership on its basis turn out to be. Thus, badleadership continues to mislead and those they lead aremisled. Where is Philosophy in all of this? Perhaps thisstands in for an answer: Were Socrates alive, today, hewould be dead by morning.10

Listen to the current leadership; the message isessentially that which Socrates contested at the eventual

cost of his life. The message is the incessant repetitionof the same information motivating wrong action in thefirst place. This is that war is peace, that property isliberty, that freedom is subjugation, that there is only oneway of life worth living, only one god worth worshipping,and only one tradition which tells us the truth about it all.

The crux of this story is that any other story isfalse. The crux of this message is that any other way of

life is wrong. The crux of this misinformation is thatthere is no reconciling with those who are informeddifferently. This is why Socrates was killed; he didntthink so. This also explains why the Philosophers who

9

Socrates called this opportunity for reflection leisure, a diminishingaspect of everyday life under an increasingly militarized corporate state, butwe will get to that in a moment.10

Perhaps book burnings are not far off, either


28/521

xxii

were not targeted for execution were not reallyPhilosophers at all. They were sycophants. Sophists.11

What does this have to do with us? Few of usclaim to be Philosophers. So what? What are we doingwrong, anyways? What would Socrates have said?

For one thing, Socrates would have pointed outthat we are acting like children. We are at least complicitin the ongoing maiming, murdering, and torturing ofothers who think differently than we do, around theworld, simply because the leadership says so, and asfast as we are able. It is as if we are children alive in afairy tale world where slaying ogres makes us goodpeople. All we have to do is find an ogre and kill it toguarantee a happy ending. So, when the leadershiptells us that there is an ogre, we kill it, maim it, andtorture it no matter where it is in the world and simply

because we were told to do so. Meanwhile, the 800-pound ogre in the room is us.

Maybe this is too simple. We all know that thereare no such things as ogres.12 We are not children, afterall. Maybe we are even guiltier than that. Maybe we aretorturing other people because they refuse to liveaccording to our own way of life, the way of life we havedetermined to be the best, and that is what makes them

ogres and deserving of such treatment.13 That said, this

11And why Socrates correctly claimed that he was the only one to practice

the true political art, an equally valid criticism of the academy, today.12

But we wont explicitly come to this until chapters 11, 12, and 1313

Some may contest with specific examples, like we kill because of theWorld Trade Center tragedy. But, like the Gulf of Tonkin incident

beforehand, this is merely a ruse for war. Unlike the Gulf of Tonkin,however, there is simply too much direct evidence for this fact to beseriously questioned. It is merely a ruse, a false flag action, and it hascost countless lives. Sadly, few have the courage, and fewer the time and


29/521

xxiii

is not the first time in history people have undertakensuch action.14 We have all seen this pattern before. Wehave simply failed to learn not to repeat it. This is amistake we have made more than once. Is it a mistakewe wish to continue making? How can we reconcile thispast with a future worth living in?

The cycle we are stuck in goes like this. The firstparty forces greater change in the second party than thatparty can tolerate, and the second party responds to thisviolence with more violence, and through the escalationmore people die. Party one blames party two and partytwo blames party one and so the violence continueswithout anyone coming to account. Tragically, the lastpersons to accept responsibility are the first personsresponsible; the leaders on either side. While we wait,good people die. This is our mistake. It is a tragic

mistake, and it is a familiar story. Even though manysee that this is what is going on, that the story we havebeen sold is a lie, we continue to live within it. Evenarmed with correct information, who, here, is doing theright thing because of it?

And, whos to say that killing people, maiming andtorturing, isnt the right thing to do? There is a certainprudence to violence, after all. It is easier to split a skull

than to change the mind within it. This goes especiallywhen the mind inside the skull getting split isnt thinkingabout splitting any skulls, first. Killing other people oftenseems to be the right thing to do, if only because theonly accounts of its propriety come from the only people

opportunity, to come to this realization let alone do something about it. So,we live and act in terms of a lie. Whats new?14

It is in the nature of every historical imperialism to mistake domination forlawful rule.


30/521

xxiv

left alive, the killers. Anticipating the power to makehistory through violence, the first thing a truly bad manand coward will do, as a leader, before commandingothers to kill, is to make his victim out to be the ogre.

After all, a dead man is essentially unable todemonstrate otherwise beside lay there and look veryugly. And we all know that ogres are ugly.

It has been said that history is written by thewinners. It is more accurate to say that history is writtenby those willing to escalate to crippling violence. Deadpeople have no interest in history, people without armsand legs have historically had a hard time writing aboutit, and the threat of becoming dead or disabled is a greatdistraction for those who might otherwise make adifference. Prudence aside, lets see about gettingbetter informed.

The story surrounding Socrates execution fitswell with our current situation. He was killed becausethe leadership of Athens made him out to be an ogre.What did Socrates do to warrant execution, exactly?The death penalty is usually reserved for murderers.But, Socrates didnt kill anyone. He merely led lesspowerful persons to believe that they had been misledby more powerful persons. He led people to become

good leaders on their own and to do the right things. Heshowed everyone that the most powerful leader is thegood person. He did however, through publicPhilosophy, threaten certain powerful persons selfishways of life. Worst of all for the people in power, he wasgood at it.

Socrates did more than challenge a fact here oran action there. He did talk about these little things, like

who did what, when, how, and why, but this was only toget to bigger issues. Socrates genius was to use


31/521

xxv

obvious little things to build up to bigger questions. Heunderstood that it wasnt one thing here or there whichmade men believe in every little fact and act out everylittle action. He understood that people only take thingsto be facts because of the way these little things fit intolarger stories and myths, and that they only act on thesefacts in similar terms. People dont kill ogres merelybecause it is a fact that there is an ogre. This fact, on itsown, doesnt really mean anything. People kill ogresbecause, so the story goes, killing ogres is the right thingto do.

Socrates strategy was to question, beginning withindividual acts and facts, the myths and stories that gavethem meaning. What he was ultimately interested inwas the meaning of life, and he understood that it is interms of stories and myths that lives are made

meaningful. It is in asking what is the meaning of lifethat he came to question the ways that certain selfishleaders of society lived their own lives. It is in this waythat he came to question whether or not their lives weremeaningful, and what their lives meant for everyoneelse. Again, this is a fitting role for so famous a teacher.But, how, exactly, did it get him killed?

Powerful men felt threatened that he challenged

their power. His example did challenge their ways of life.Socrates, however, was not a very powerful man. Hewas old, and relatively poor. Why, then, did they feeltheir power so threatened? Socrates did not directly viefor power, himself.15 Besides that, their official

15

He never ran for office, though once he was appointed by his fellowcitizens to the modern equivalent of a local office and dutifully served histerm, and on another occasion was ordered by corrupt leaders to do thewrong thing and refused to do it.


32/521

xxvi

allegations leading to Socrates execution had nothing todo with him directly threatening their personal power.One of their official charges was that he failed to respectthe gods of Athens; but, this was false. Socrates was byall familiar accounts respectful of traditional Athenianreligious rites. He did stand out as a deviant in regard toat least one convention; he refused to pressure boys totrade sex for education and influence. This fact did notstop his accusers, powerful and influential men, who bythe way suffered no similar compunction to abstinence,from framing the further official allegation that Socratescorrupted the youth. But, how?

These men felt threatened because Socratesquestioning compelled them to question themselves.Socrates example compelled them to look in the mirror.This was not something they were willing to do. If they

had actually done so, they would have found themselveshypocrites and bad leaders, examples of bad informationat work. Such a realization would have been difficult toreconcile with their ongoing interest in wealth and power.

This would also have meant an end to theirleadership, with unpleasant repercussions. A lot ofpeople suffered, even died, because of their wrongactions. If their corruption had been made public, a

great many people would have been very upset. Thesemen must have felt as if Socrates was, at least indirectly,threatening their very lives, not merely the ways thatthey lived them. So, they responded in kind. Theymade it look like he was the source of corruption and thebad leader. Because of the possible repercussions forSocrates, execution, they threatened his very life. It wasonly fair.

To these leaders of Athens, their actions likelyappeared just. Socrates showed that their apparently


33/521

xxvii

right ways of life were actually wrong, so they made hisactually right way of life appear wrong. Because theywere powerful, and he not, this got Socrates chargedand convicted. There is a tragic symmetry operative inthis turn of events.

But, there is an even more tragic asymmetry.They may not have expected he was willing to die for thetruth because, after all, they werent. The asymmetry isthat he was willing to die for the truth. He was aPhilosopher. So am I.

And here is the lasting power of the Socraticexample: he demonstrates the courage to pursue thetruth and live by it. He demonstrates the courage ofwisdom. One does not become wise hiding away in acomfortable classroom with his nose in someone elsesspecial information. One becomes wise by suffering to

live for the truth in the full light of day.As the old saying goes, the truth hurts. The

implication, here, is that Socrates the leaderwas willingto suffer so that everyone else could benefit by hisexample, and by the resulting understanding maybeeven do the right thing. In essence, the leaders of

Athenian society executed Socrates because he was agood man, a good leader, and a good teacher, willing to

suffer for the good of others, while they were not.16 Thisis the tragic asymmetry that marks the end of Socrateslife story. It also marks the beginning of ours. Thingsdid get bad for Athens because of his loss, but maybewe can benefit by it, now.

Socrates famously maintained that theunexamined life is not worth living. Now, I must confess

16The they here were Anytus, his puppet Meletus, and a few others who

ran things.


34/521

xxviii

that when presented with so many egregious examplesof vicious ignorance as is the color of the culture, today, Isometimes wish that his formula amounted to It is ok tokill people who refuse to question their own wrongactions. But, this is not what Socrates meant by that;he meant that the value in life is our capacity to change,and especially to do so on purpose when presented withthe right information. The value in life is freedom, andfor Socrates true freedom is of a very special kind. Thisfreedom is only revealed through self-examination,toward self-understanding. It is the freedom of self-determination.17

The freedom of self-determination, to determinefor ones self ones own ends and actions, had been theprize held out by traditional Western Philosophy at leastuntil it was bled of this inspiration by the scholastics and

the dark ages of Christendom, but this is beside thepoint. Socrates thought that the value in life is thefreedom of self-determination, and that self-understanding through self-examination, through thepractice of Philosophy, is the key to this empowerment.It is with this formula, and with the hope for a betterworld at its heart, that our story of conscience actuallybegins. So, onward!

3) Finding a way outLets start with a twist on a familiar phrase from

the American tradition that echoes the Socratic formula.It is self-evident that each of us is equal, and free. Yet, it

17

Here, I may lose some readers who are especially taken by the newneurological determinism seemingly substantiated by the famous Libetexperiments, by Daniel Wegners recent book, and others. I would only askthat they read on, if they are indeed free not to.


35/521

xxix

is also self evident that each of us is different, and isbound to different things in different ways for differentpurposes. How are we to reconcile these apparentcontradictions? And, what are we to do once we havereconciled these apparent contradictions?

Every one of us lives a life story, even as he isborn into a larger story of the world, a history, alreadyunfolding. Each one of us looks forward to happyendings, and away from the worst. Each of us does soin terms of the story into which he is born, is raised, andtakes to be true. The greatest stories of history arethose of the worlds old religions. The religions of worldhistory set out the highest determinations within which apersons life story is embedded. They make lifemeaningful. These are the sorts of stories Socrates setout to question. They are also the sorts of stories which

corrupt leadership protects, in Socrates case underpenalty of death, from any questioning. Lets look atwhy.

Religious stories are about such things as god,justice, truth, love, heaven, hell, redemption,forgiveness, etcetera. The treatments of these termsmay differ in different religious stories, but all do providetreatments of these highest terms. Even stories which

hold themselves out to be non-religious providetreatments of this same set of terms, even if it is only tonegate them.

This raises a very interesting point. Though thestories by which we each live may differ in detail, we alllive under a set of highest terms common to thesestories. Even without Allah one lives for justice, evenwithout Eros one lives for love, even without Satan one

lives for redemption, etcetera. By way of these commonterms, within or without different religious traditions, we


36/521

xxx

all share common aspirations, common horizons,common oceans, and common ends. These are theterms common to all that is epic, tragic, ironic, andcomic; these are all terms we share in commonregardless of religious orientation. These are the termsof revolution, tyranny, bounty and famine, life and death,war and peace, terms by which we all succeed or sufferin common. Here, on this planet Earth, we write worldhistory in common terms together.

What, then, of the different stories in terms ofwhich we live our separate lives? How are these woventogether into the single yarn of one world history? Eachof our stories is subtly different in its determinations ofthe world we share. Each makes sense of the world inslightly different ways. Even so, one thing is clear.Beneath all of these different determinations, there is

one world in common. It is not flat. It is getting warmer.We will all die here. These are all determinations weshare. They describe the common world. There isnothing artificial or unnatural about this realization.Clearly, this common basis for all our subtly differentdeterminations is the natural world however we makemythological sense of it.

Whether created or designed or evolved or

otherwise, there is one natural world from which all ofhumanitys great stories are derived and in terms ofwhich we all share in one common world history.

Why not simply live in terms of this history of thenatural world, rather than some mythic derivationthereof? Frankly, because no one has made adequatesense of it, yet. Let me emphasize yet. That doesntmean it isnt going to happen. In fact, once you finish

reading this book, you might think that it already hashappened. Meanwhile, it is up to us to reconcile the


37/521

xxxi

contrary determinations of all these stories with the worldwe share, if we are to continue sharing this world, itshistory, past and future, peacefully and without killingeach other instead.

Recently, there has been increasingly cogentcriticism of humanitys old religious stories in light of anunfolding natural story determined by natural scientists.Neurologists, philosophers, psychologists, and othershave feverishly published texts critical of religion, ofreligious stories, and of the religious ways of lifeundertaken in terms of these stories. The crux of thecriticism is that the old religious stories trap practitionersinto outdated ways of life and prevent the rest of us frommoving forward. The criticism is that, as the naturalworld changes, so should our understanding of how tolive within it. As the world changes, so should what is

determined to be a good life story, what is a happyending, and what is the right thing to do. The criticism isthat we must reconcile the terms by which we have beentold to live our lives, god, justice, redemption, etcetera,with the terms of the natural world as revealed by thenatural sciences.

The criticism is that the world is changing, andhas changed, and religious stories have stayed the

same, so we have to change them, too, otherwise wewill continue living as if in terms of another world, an oldstorybook world. Cleary, this criticism strikes close tothe heart of many popular religions. The leaders ofthese religions explicitly compel their followers to live interms of other worlds rather than in terms of this naturalone, whether merely old or other-worldly altogether.Like I said, recently, these scientists and philosophers


38/521

xxxii

have cooked up an especially cogent criticism. But is itright?18 Lets look a little more closely.

The criticism is that our way of life should suit oursituation, now, not that situation 2000 years ago and notthat of some alien situation as if on another world. Yet,this leaves us with a problem. In what terms are we tolive if not in terms of these great stories from history?This is an especially difficult question to answer, but it iseven more difficult to ask for those people who take theterms of these old stories to be the very words of God!

For those of us who areable to ask the question,the fact that others arent isnt going to keep us fromtrying to answer it. The world is a much different placeat present than when the various religions of the oldworld were codified. We do not now live in terms of thatold world situation, no matter how fondly our old world

stories recall it.No matter how often we repeat these stories to

ourselves, they simply do not describe the world the waywe understand it, today. We understand our currentsituation in different terms because we have a lot of newideas about it. Take, for instance, the story of creation.Nice story. Understates the facts. Not true. Take, forinstance, the story that there are virgins awaiting a

martyr of holy war in heaven. Nice story. Overstates thefacts. Not true.

The story that is adequate to the facts is that welive in a world which is the product of generations ofhuman industry undertaken in terms of old stories, andnow we are in a world of trouble because of it. The truthabout this story is that scientific stories are not free from

18 Socrates will show us that there is at least one case in which their

criticism does not hold.


39/521

xxxiii

this criticism merely because they are scientific stories.This puts us in the difficult position of reconciling allthese stories if we are to uncover ourselves from thetrouble we are increasingly in by way of them.

Sure, there are wars over religion, prejudice overreligion, and laws prosecuted from religious grounds.But we are in even deeper trouble than that. Thecontemporary world is the product of human industry atthe guiding hand of old stories and new, at every cornerof the globe, and the resulting ways of life which now suitthis contemporary human world are ill fit to the naturalworld in terms of which we all ultimately rest. This goesfor the life of the scientist as well as that undertaken interms of old religion.19

Here is where we have gone wrong. We havetaken stories to be true whose terms under-represent the

complexity of the natural world, and we have lived interms of these stories. The problem is that the stories interms of which people live are too simple, tooconvenient, and, because they are easy, too difficult tochange. They presume an understanding where there isnone, just as those who live within them presume thesame. Industries undertaken on their terms haveconsequently underestimated the complexity of the

natural world, and their captains press ahead, anyways.They presume control where there is none, and enforceblind obedience when their projects unjust, immoral, areotherwise simply unintelligible.

Why havent we questioned these stories andtheir determinations? Why have we kept doing as wehave done, not learning from our mistakes? We havetaken these stories to be true because we have been

19Aldous Huxley had something important to say about this.


40/521

xxxiv

comforted with them, and we have pursued theseindustries because we have become comfortable bythem. Between the preaching and the production, wehave been blinded to the painful consequences. Wherewe have not been blind, we have hidden away.

Where the weather is unmanageable, there is airconditioning. Where the rivers are unmanageable, thereare dams and bridges. Where we grow too fat to climbstairs, there are people movers. Where the ups anddowns of every aspect of the natural world are too greatfor human comfort, human industry flattens it out.Human life is consequently undertaken in the space ofthese flattened terms.

Today, a characteristic mark of the successfulhuman life is that it proceeds without discomfort, withoutconsequences, without any contact with the natural

world, whatsoever. Successful people pay lesssuccessful people for that. Successful life, here andnow, hides from the natural world in artificialenvironments and where able covers it over withconcrete and thick black tar. On this lifeless surface,human beings walk in shiny, pointy, high-heeled shoesfrom living flat-floored box to traveling flat-floored box toworking flat-floored box and back again. This is the

story of life in the West. It is simple. It is an idle marchat the beat of an old drum. It is ending.

The story is that of human progress, and the storyof this progress is the story of human power. Power iscontrol, and control is evidenced in the reduction of themountainous complexity of the natural world to the flat-land of todays artificial one. The story is that humanindustry makes the world a better place for the human

lives within it. This story, however, is clearly wrong.Autism, extinction, cancer, poverty, obesity, pollution,


41/521

xxxv

militarism, global environmental collapse, radiation,drug-resistant pathogens, the death of the bees, all arerising actors in the closing chapters in the unfoldinghistory of human industry. So far, I have yet to see ascientific story, let alone a religious one, which correctsfor these mistakes. That is what this book is for; thiswork is ahead of us.

The point here is that the story of humanprogress, and with it the stories of progressive humanlives therein embedded, is itself embedded within evenbigger stories which appear to bless ongoing industry atthe expense of the natural world. All of these storiespoint to tragedy ahead, and advise those within them toprepare for it. This goes for the life of the scientific criticof religion as well as for the religious life he criticizes.The near future is a terrifying proposition.

Historically speaking, the biggest of all thesestories have been religious stories. This is why manycall science the new religion. Industry and religion gohand in hand, and have led us together as if one happyfamily to the current status quo. Look around, here inthe West. What we see now is Wal-Mart recruitingevangelists to lecture their employees on the Wal-Martway of life, evangelists recruiting militants to defend that

way of life,20 and these militants killing people of otherreligions and other industries because they do notalready live this way of life. All the killing, however,doesnt make any of these stories any more true. It justmakes challenging these stories very expensive.Holding out for the true story may cost you your life.

21

20Take Bush employing Blackwater for instance.

21 Take the incredible death rates of independent journalists, or the

assassination of Pat Tillman, whose example returns in section 15.


42/521

xxxvi

What is true about these stories is that leaders ofhuman industry have always colluded with leaders ofhistorys old religions to get their collective storiesstraight. Why? Wealth. Power. Control. Coercion. Itis all very simple.

Take, for instance, one aspect common to all ofthese stories, scientific or religious, which does appearaccurate. We are on the global brink of a fiery warringmess rife with famine and disease and pestilence andthe whole nine yards. Good for business? Yes.22 Goodfor religion? Yes.23 True story? Apparently, but onewith a very unhappy ending, pursued only on the basisof very bad information, as the product of even worseleadership.

Simply put, there is nothing about the naturalworld, itself, that makes things this way. We have made

things this way, ourselves. We live in a world of our ownconsequences. If the world is going to end, it is becausewe have taken it on ourselves to act towards the end ofthe world. We have done so industriously and both inthe terms old religions, and the terms of new scientificstories which, so far, have only aggravated the situation.It is through realizing this truth that we have a way out.We must begin to reconcile the dark past with a bright

future else end up in the ditch. That light, ahead, isconscience.

22 Recall how much duct tape Home Depot sold when the government

warned against religiously motivated bio-terrorism? Just another instanceof false-flag fear for profit? Perhaps23

Note the rising political influence of religious groups as crisis looms. Self-fulfilling prophecy? Perhaps


43/521

xxxvii

4) The journey out of darknessNow, I understand that it is increasingly popular

for armchair scholars to cast about over whose religionis worse than whose science and vice versa, but I haveneither the time nor the patience for such self-indulgenthogwash. It is not clear that we, as a race, would bebetter off now than before no matter which old religiousor new scientific story might have framed our actions tothis point. It is clear, however, that the naturalenvironment which originally shaped the old religions isnot better off for their continued practice. It is also clearthat the industries undertaken since have not made thenatural world a better place for most of us to live.24 Withincreasing global warming, and with increasing globalwarring, it is increasingly time for a change.

The problem remains: what change?Contemporary critics of the old religions are notconstructive critics in this regard. They do not tell ushow to change. Their aim has been to deny the value inreligious ways of life and the religious stories whichmotivate them, pure and simple. Their aim has not beenthe adequate replacement thereof. The critics, thus, fallshort of offering any legitimate solutions to world

problems, religiously fueled or otherwise. Being theleaders of the scientific revolution that they are, theysimply cast stones. And, the leaders of the religiouslyminded are fighting back. They are returning fire. Thus,the critics and the criticized, both sides leaders, merelythrow rocks at each other across an increasingly

24Especially if, in this most of us, we responsibly include the countless

unborn children of every race and affliction we should yet hope will live interms of this natural world.


44/521

xxxviii

unbridgeable divide. Meanwhile, there stand you, andme, and a lot of innocent kids, mostly Asian and Africankids, stuck in the middle.

One very good question is: what are these peoplethinking? Can a peaceful future be grounded in such adivide? No. Can we live in terms of one side at the costof the other? No. Of course, that doesnt stop onegroup from seeking to expunge evolution from sciencetexts and the other from seeking to expunge religiousmythologies from everyday life. So, here we are, in realtrouble and in light of which the prudence of violenceshines especially brightly, except perhaps for those of uscaught in the middle of the violence.

For a moment, lets pretend that killing each othersimply isnt what we want to do; a life of desperation andmurder is not a way of life we want to display for our

children. In that case, what we need is a new way of lifebuilt from both the new sciences and the old religions.We need a foundation made from a bridge and we needit right away. If you didnt already feel this way, youwouldnt still be reading, and

Surprise! The following text fills this gap. Thistext founds a fresh start without all the murdering andraping and pillaging and pissing on each others graves.

Now, we are getting somewhere, but it isnt going to beeasy. Reconciliation is hard work, and what we mustreconcile are nothing less than contrary determinationsof the very biggest issues ever brought to the humanmind. We must, from beginning to end, corner to corner,draw a circle of words around the world if we are goingto save it, and from the beginning to the end is a verylong way. Hold on for one hell of a ride.

The critics of the old religions have gotten at leastone thing right. Old religions do trap practitioners in


45/521

xxxix

essentially out-dated ways of life; but taken on their own,these religious practices, no matter how old, are notnecessarily destructive. There is nothing necessarilywrong with believing in a God and living accordingly.Take, for instance, the Amish. Here is an example of aperfectly sustainable, environmentally responsible, andrelatively old religious way of life. Yes, the terms inwhich they live appear outdated, but whats really wrongwith that?

There is another thing the critics of religions havegotten right. New sciences do update old practices inlight of new information. After all, they provide the newinformation. However, taken on their own, they do notguarantee that what we do in light of this newinformation is the right thing to do or even needs to bedone. Take, for instance, thalidomide. Or, television.

Or, phthalate ridden teething toys, or mercury amalgamfillings, or antibiotics, or processed foods, or factoryfarms, or deforestation, or fossil fuel dependency, orpollution, or radioactive waste, or chemical weapons, orbiological weapons, or the militarization of space, orantidepressants. Take your pick. Science is verydangerous stuff and I, frankly, am as tired of thearmchair scientist with his stuffed-shirt superiority who

cant tell when it is time to get off his sterile high horseas I am tired of the evangelist who lies in order to keepthe truth about the mysteries of his religion from comingto light. Faith is not a bad thing, unless it keeps youfrom doing what is right, and both sides of the issue areas guilty as the other on this count. This text is here topatch things up. Time to reconcile. Conscience is thetool for the job.

Now, I promised a tough ride, and I meant it.Read slowly.


46/521

xl

Deviance from past religious practices andvariable interpretations of new scientific results must betolerated if the experiment that is mankind on Earth is tocontinue. What the battle between the old religions andthe new sciences demonstrates is that we have reacheda limit to toleration. One side battles the other side in anincreasing dispute over whose story

25 is bigger, when

neither will ever be big enough. This text expands thislimit by examining the tool for their reconciliation: theconscience.

The problems with any ways of life, scientific,religious or otherwise, arise when lives lived in theirterms negatively affect shared living conditions. That is,if you want to do something you think is right and it getsin the way of my doing what I think is right, there is goingto be a problem. What we see when we look around the

neighborhood today, globally or just down the block, area lot of these sorts of problems.

The really big problems arise when the religiouslife, or the scientific life, is also a political life. Bigproblems arise when the life in question is the life of aleader. When the religious practitioner is also a politicalpower, the constraint of religious tradition is imposed onthe scientist under his yoke. When the scientist is also a

political power, the constraint of scientific tradition isimposed on the religious person under his yoke. Eitherparty may complain that the others is not life in terms ofhis own tradition, and neither party is going to be veryhappy about letting go of said tradition and living adifferent sort of life. So, what are we going to do?

One leading critic of religion, neuro-scientist SamHarris, has proscribed that those still yearning for

25Carrot


47/521

xli

religion in light of the results of the new sciences shouldturn to Buddhism as a replacement for their owninherited religious traditions.

Why Buddhism? Ostensibly, because Buddhismis a way of life fundamentally committed to the practicaldetachment from prior presumptions, religious orotherwise.

26 Buddhism aims to minimize the suffering

which each person endures as he adapts to life in achanging world. Buddhism proscribes that eachindividual person should unlearn habits perfectedaccording to prior determinations because thesedeterminations and any actions undertaken on theirbases, as things change, are certain to fail.

Ostensibly, new scientist Harris advocatesBuddhism as a replacement to other religions for veryold reasons. Religions, of every stripe, are, on the

formula of Marx and Hegel before him, pacifying. Theseare the opiates of the masses. Buddhism is anespecially effective opiate in this regard.

Why? Interestingly, one of the literal roots of theword religion is Latin, religare, to bind fast.27

Religion, literally, is that to which one is bound.Buddhism, as a practice, promises to undo thesebindings, and so, consequently, minimize the discomfort

one feels as he changes his way of life to suit thechanging terms of a changing world. It takes the painaway.

26Interestingly, yoga, so recently popular in the West, literally means to

yoke habits of body to habits of mind. Buddhism can be understood as a

disciplined un-yoking of said habits from one to the other.27 See the final section, Conscience and the Constitution, for further

discussion on the meaning of religion and the religious life, especially in theAmerican democracy.


48/521

xlii

Yet, is it the right thing to do, to embrace a way oflife merely in order to minimize ones own suffering as heendures change, the worlds and his own, as he agesand the natural environment collapses around him? Isdetachment, now, the right move to make?

If the sole purpose of ones way of life is tominimize his own suffering as the tenets of his oldreligion are first disputed and then nullified, and the riftsin the natural ecosystem are first occluded and thencauterized by the increasing heat of the incessant Sun,then Buddhism is an adequate solution.

If the sole purpose of ones way of life is to getones self out of the way of impending ruin, Buddhism isan adequate solution. On the Buddhist picture, the selfis merely a locus of regularity; it is habit. Exposed to thesame things in the same ways for so long, the body

comes to expect that it will continue to be so exposed, insuch ways, in the future. The resulting bundle ofexpectations is what we come to call the self. But, thatis all it is; there is nothing permanent about it, it isntgoing to last forever, even if one simply refuses to alterhis expectations regardless of evidence that he shoulddo so. This is where holding onto the self leads tosuffering. Thus, on the Buddhist picture, the notion that

the self is a lasting thing is merely an illusion, a sourceof suffering, and as such something to be dispelled.Once one recognizes that ones self is an illusion, theself is effectively out of the way of impending religiousruin, scientific ruin, environmental ruin, all sorts of ruinaltogether. Suffering ceases; mission accomplished.

The Buddhists aim is the disillusion of the illusionof self-hood. The aim of Buddhist practice is the

realization of a state of no-self. No-self names thestate enjoyed upon the realization of this aim. No-self is


49/521

xliii

the realization that there is no self to be trapped by tiesto old ways of life in the first place. The sense that thereis a self, bound to things, is merely habit to beunlearned. Buddhism is the discipline of this unlearning.It is a religious science of detachment. Buddhismpromises to get the self out of the way of life altogether,but it is especially motivational when that life promises tobe a painful one!

If the purpose of ones way of life is merely theminimization of painful consequences for ones self,then Buddhism is an adequate solution. If the purposeof ones way of life is the constructive political solution ofglobal environmental problems so that futuregenerations can live securely attached to their ownselves and lots of other things, too, Buddhism is not anadequate solution. Constructive political solutions

demand that we remain attached to the consequences ofour actions; and however you slice it, our selves arethe primary consequences of our actions. That is unlesswe count just throwing up our hands and letting goaltogether a constructive political solution. Thatmeans, first of all, having the courage to discover what isgood because, no matter where we end up, someonesself is going to show up there and suffer for it if we dont.

Harris has gotten one thing right in advocatingBuddhism. This is that we must let go of the way thingsare in order for them to change for the better, our selvesincluded. We must let go of our selves if we are tobecome otherwise. However we identify, as Theist,

Atheist, or even Buddhist, scientist or religious person,we must loosen our ties with this identification. Thedifficulty isnt in the letting go per se; that part is easy.

The difficulty is in the letting go for what? How do we


50/521

xliv

reconcile who we are with what we must become when itisnt yet clear what that might be?28

It has been said that no matter where one goes,he takes himself with him. However, this does notaccount for the fact that wherever one goes, he is freedfrom his old self and becomes someone new. Whatseems closer to the truth is that wherever one goes, hewill not be the same. The movement from one place toanother, changing along the way, is sometimes calledtranscendence. Transcendence is a religious term;scientists havent paid it much attention. That doesntmean there isnt a scientific basis for transcendence.That also doesnt mean that scientists dont experiencetranscendence. They do. It simply means that it is up tous to reconcile this fact. It is in this bridging notion oftranscendence that we will see our freedom to let go of

who we are and to become otherwise for what it is:freedom to become bound to different terms, again.Freedom of self-determination.

Think for a moment on transcendence and what itmeans. Transcendence is the movement from one stateof being to another, especially going from a lower form oflife to a higher form of life. Often, one pursues thismovement through his education. He becomes informed

as to how to live a better life. Thus, one can say that hetranscended the limitations of his past meaning that hebecame a better man by first learning how. WilliamDembski characterizes this everyday sense oftranscendence as:

The word transcendence comes from theLatin and means literally to climb across orgo beyond. To transcend is thus to surpass

28We will approach this theme explicitly in chapters 8, 9, 10


51/521

xlv

or excel or move beyond the reach orgrasp of something.29

Including, for instance, the limits of ones priorunderstanding upon learning something new. That is tosay that simply learning something new is basic, run ofthe mill, everyday transcendence. Even scientists dothat, at least open minded ones. This is also to say thatlife on the basis of this new understanding is the promiseof transcendence. Even scientists promise that.Transcendence is the climb from bound ignorance tofreedom. Religious myth or scientific discovery,transcendence is the same.

Transcendence is freedom. At first glance, thisfreedom of transcending prior limitations seems like whatphilosophers call radical freedom. Transcendence

appears to allow for the impossible. What is impossiblebefore transcendence is what becomes actualafterwards. And, any way of life, lived in these terms,appears equally to be an impossibility beforehand.Transcendence seems like radical freedom becausedoing the impossible, living life in impossible terms is,after all, pretty radical.

But, nothing could be farther from the case. For

instance, imagine a specific case of what it is like beforelimitations of a prior understanding are transcended.Imagine that you are an expert mechanic. You aredriving, with a friend, and your car stops. You step out,look under the hood, and see nothing wrong with the car.

29

William Dembski, entry on transcendence for New Dictionary ofChristian Apologeticsavailable at:www.designinference.com/documents/2003.10.Transcendence_NDOCApol.pdf (last accessed February 28, 2007).


52/521

xlvi

Imagine that your friend asks Whats wrong with thecar? to which you reply Nothing. In your expertopinion, it is impossible that this car has quit running.Still, there you are, on the side of the road, standingstill.30

Imagine that your friend is an expert driver. Hesays I think that you are right, there is nothing wrongwith the car. I think that the problem is your driving! Hethen goes on to explain what is wrong with your driving,and how it caused the car to come to a halt. All of asudden, you realize how it is possible that the car hasstopped. In order to come to this understanding, youhad to move past your own prior limitations. You had tolearn to appreciate new ideas, and in turn thepossibilities that these new ideas opened up. The carhasnt broken down; it is your understanding which has

failed. Impossible? This is an everyday turn of events,hardly a radical proposition.

Understood in new terms, what had appearedimpossible beforehand is now possible. This goes foreveryday learning. Living in terms of newly acquiredinformation is a very basic case of transcendence.Freedom from the limitations of prior knowledge,breaking the old bonds to what one had thought was

right, makes the impossible into the possible in everycase. There is nothing magical about it. Doing theimpossible is simple. In fact, for the Philosopher, theimpossible is the only thing worth doing.31 What we

30I want to recognize Professor Alexander VonSchoenborn. This example

is patterned from his own, often repeated in classrooms to the great benefitof his students, myself included. Thank you, Alexander VonSchoenborn.You are a great man.31

See, Professor Chant, this is how it is done, and this is how We do it.


53/521


54/521

xlviii

little of this information is valuable so far as anorganisms continued health is concerned. In order toget by in light of all this noise, organisms filter theinformation most important for survival from all that isavailable. Thus, living things open to some of theirenvironment, and close to the rest.

Organisms filter away most of the information towhich they are open. Birds see a lot more than flashingfins, rabbits hear a lot more than sharp sounds, but theyselectively react to these things by ignoring the rest.Some of the modes of this filtration are learned duringthe lifetime of the organism. With repetition, rabbits willlearn not to run from all sharp sounds, and birds willlearn that not all watery flashes are fins. These aremodifications of capacities embodied purely as theconsequence of adaptation to environmental constraints.

They use the same ears, the same eyes with which theywere born and bred, only differently. Human beingsembody similar limitations. They show up in everydayways, and it is these we are here, now, to transcend.

Adaptation to the information available in certainenvironments makes any organism the organism that itis. No amount of learning can undo this fact. Simplyput, information from the environment in-forms the

organism within it. That is, as the environment comesin-, the organism is -formed. It embodies what it mustto remain healthy in terms of that environmentalinformation. Thus, we may see evolution as aninformational process. Organisms adapt, in form, to suitthe terms, the information, of the environments in whichthey evolve.

This is a chemical process. Every critter is a

sensitive bundle of moving genetic information. Geneticinformation is chemical. The environment is chemical.


55/521

xlix

The chemical environment influences how geneticinformation unfolds, what information the resultingsensitive critter filters, and lets in. Think of a rabbit in afield of carrots. His eyes are sensitive bundles ofchemicals. This unfolded genetic information opens toother information. The rabbit is informed of the presenceof carrots. But, sometimes the information is hidden, ormisleading. He may miss the carrot, or make one outthat is not there. His olfactory apparatus is attunedsimilarly. He may smell the carrot, fail to smell thecarrot, or even fail to smell the rottenness of a carrot,though he is much less likely to miss the smell ofrottenness than to mistake the sight of something elsefor that of a carrot. This works out, as sometimes it paysto chase an illusory carrot, while it never pays to mistakea rotten one. In either case, this is good information,

information in the form of chemicals which keeps hisown chemical genetic information unfolding, generationafter generation. Rabbits, the great carrot hunters, arelong eared chemical search engines

Organisms are selectively open to certain formsof information. They openly seek this information, andclose to, even deny, other information. Some of thisselectivity cannot be transcended. Every eye does not

see everything, every ear does not hear everything, andevery mouth does not open for everything. Theorganism senses what is necessary for everydaysurvival within the environment that is the space of itsevolution, and where it does not, it either dies, or suchsensitivity is not necessary for its everyday survival.

In simpler organisms than you and I, theircapacities to survive in different or in changing

environments are limited strictly by their own embodiedchemistry. To move outside of their native environment


56/521

l

is to be exposed to information which is outside theirranges of sensitivity, their capacities to open or to closeto this information, and inevitably to bio-chemical death.These organisms are bound to the informationalcontexts within which they have evolved. These arebonds which they are not free to transcend.

The genetic chemistry of an organism maychange to suit an environment but there is a limit on howthe environment informs these changes. The primarylimit is generational.33 The environment influences theway the genetic information of the organism isexpressed, and this affects how the organism thenperforms in the environment. On the basis of thisperformance, the organism creates the next generation.It is this next generation which is the expression of theeffect of environmental information on the prior

generation. In this way, organisms keep up withchanges to their environments. They do so as groups.Genetic chemicals do not hunt alone; they flocculate.34

Through selective openness to environme

Documents

Conscience: The Mechanism of Morality